Since time immemorial man has been obsessed with obtaining greater yields of produce from his agriculture endeavors. It is well known that a tilled garden encourages move vigorous growth of the produce due to elimination of unwanted competition as in the form of weeds.
Accordingly, the following U.S. Pat. Nos. appear to reflect the state of art of which applicant is aware insofar as they are germane to the patent process: 1,827,074 Ditlevsen Oct. 13, 1931, 2,550,552 Bolongard Apr. 24, 1951, 2,779,259 Kelsey Jan. 29, 1957, 2,816,495 Brooks Dec. 17, 1957, 3,548,953 Richardson Dec. 22, 1970, 3,756,324 Bills Sept. 4, 1973, 4,003,436 Foster Jan. 18, 1977.
Of these, Bolongard teaches the use of a reciprocatory hole in which a handle has disposed thereon a wheel supported from the handle by means of a bifurcated frame upon which frame rests a motor adapted to drive both the wheel and a hoe. The hoe is chain driven indirectly through an eccentric cam so as to provide reciprocatory motion about an axis which is coincident with the handle.
The patent to Ditlevsen teaches the use of a pick-type power operated hoe having an external power source and a fixed pivot point about which the hoe operates.
The patent to Richardson teaches the use of a shrubbery and plant digger in which a telescopic sleeve reciprocates and by applying pressure from the handle portion, the implement presumably will go under the ground.
Of these three patents, the first discussed patent requires the use of a wheeled motorized support in order to make the device effective, since as shown in the second and third discussed patents it is not clear from the mechanical actions involved in these patents whether or not the person holding on to the implement would be receiving the cyclic power pulses, or whether they could be adequately distributed and discharged into the soil. That is, if the soil were unusually hard it would appear as though the persons holding on to the handles of these implements would receive the power pulses contrary to the objects of the devices.
The remaining references appear to diverge even further from the structure and claims according to the instant application and those similarities between any of these patents and that which is taught in the instant application appears to be merely coincidental.